Progressive Selection Method for the Coupled Lot-Sizing and Cutting-Stock Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coupled lot-sizing and cutting-stock problem has been a challenging and significant problem for industry, and has therefore received sustained research attention. The quality of the solution is a major determinant of cost performance in related production and inventory management systems, and therefore there is intense pressure to develop effective practical solutions. In the literature, a number of heuristics have been proposed for solving the problem. However, the heuristics are limited in obtaining high solution qualities. This paper proposes a new progressive selection algorithm that hybridizes heuristic search and extended reformulation into a single framework. The method has the advantage of generating a strong bound using the extended reformulation, which can provide good guidelines on partitioning and sampling in the heuristic search procedure to ensure an efficient solution process. We also analyze per-item and per-period Dantzig–Wolfe decompositions of the problem and present theoretical comparisons. The master problem of the per period Dantzig–Wolfe decomposition is often degenerate, which results in a tailing-off effect for column generation. We apply a hybridization of Lagrangian relaxation and stabilization techniques to improve the convergence. The discussion is followed by extensive computational tests, where we also perform detailed statistical analyses on various parameters. Comparisons with other methods indicate that our approach is computationally tractable and is able to obtain improved results. The online supplement is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2017.0746 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".